Proposition 140 limited the number of terms that California state senators and representatives can stay in office. Members of the California State Assembly were limited by its provisions to three two-year terms and members of the California State Senate to two four-year terms. It also imposed a lifelong ban against seeking the same office once the limits were reached.

Proposition 140 also:

Stopped the practice of state legislators earning state retirement benefits from their service in the state legislature.

Text of measure

Title

Summary

Persons elected or appointed after November 5, 1990, holding offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Board of Equalization members, and State Senators, limited to two terms; members of the Assembly limited to three terms.

Requires legislators elected or serving after November 1, 1990, to participate in federal Social Security program; precludes accrual of other pension and retirement benefits resulting from legislative service, except vested rights.

Limits expenditures of Legislature for compensation and operating costs and equipment, to specified amount.

Art Pagdan, MD, of the National 1st VP, Filipino-American Political Association

Arguments in favor

Supporters of Proposition 140 made these arguments in its favor in the state's official voter guide:

"It will reform a political systems that has created a legislature of career politicians...a system that has given a tiny elite almost limitless power over the lives of California's taxpayers and consumers."

It will "save taxpayers $60 million" in its first year alone by reducing the amount that state legislators are allowed to spend on their office expenses.

It will "end extravagant pensions for legislators...the legislative pension system often pays more than the legislator received while in office."

It will create more competitive elections.

It will "remove the grip that vested interests have over the legislature."

It will "put an end to the Sacramento web of special favors and patronage."

Opposition

Excerpt of arguments against Proposition 140 in the official voter guide

District Court Judge Claudia Wilken upheld the claim of Bates and enjoined California Secretary of State Bill Jones from enforcing the provisions of Proposition 140.[3] In Wilken's ruling, she agrees with the view of the plaintiffs that the voters were unaware that they were imposing a lifetime ban once the limits had been reached.

The National Tax Limitation Committee and Bill Jones appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge panel heard the appeal. Two of them upheld Wilken's ruling. At that time, a majority of the active judges of the Ninth Circuit vote to rehear the case. When the case was re-heard before the full circuit, Wilken's earlier verdict was overturned and the law went into effect.[4]